Video: The Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Guy

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here is a fine example two witnesses heard the frontal shot and were convinced to change their story.

Both Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers said that O'Neil's claims that they were convinced to change their account were not true.

O'Donnell: "The story [that he changed his story] is an absolute lie…whoever gave that story is lying. It’s an absolute, outright lie." – Kenneth O’Donnell, Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975.



And here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en

[Jarrett Smith]

Both Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers said that O'Neil's claims that they were convinced to change their account were not true.

O'Donnell: "The story [that he changed his story] is an absolute lie…whoever gave that story is lying. It’s an absolute, outright lie." – Kenneth O’Donnell, Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975.



And here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en

I believe Tip O'Neil. Powers and O'Donnell were loyal to the family I understand why they denied it.

[John Corbett]

I believe Tip O'Neil. Powers and O'Donnell were loyal to the family I understand why they denied it.

Obviously, either Powers or O'Neill lied about the conversation. I can believe Powers thought shots came from the GK because a lot of other people made that same mistake. If he did believe that, he should have testified that way even if the FBI told him he was wrong.

[Jack Nessan]

While the WC allowed for the possibility of only two shots, it seems pretty far fetched to me. JBC said he heard a shot before the one that hit him in the back. The clear consensus of witnesses is there 3 shots. Most compelling, three spent shell casings in the snipers nest. That dog won't hunt.

Not quite, the WC not only allowed for only two shots they also postulated one of the shells was ejected before the shooting.  CE 543 shows no signs of having been fired during the assassination. Maybe that is the one they referred to. Three shells does not automatically mean three shots.

With all these three shot witnesses , which witness actually stated the first shot missed. The one certainty  it was not JBC.

JBC stated he did not hear the shot that hit him, but he also said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Both Nellie and Jackie stated that was after the first shot. Nellie added before the second shot. Jackie stated there were only the two shots. 

Ultimately, where is the eyewitness to JFK not reacting to the first shot.

Nellie is definite the first shot struck JFK not just vanished into thin air. She also referenced JBC's own words as to when he was struck by the first shot. AS did Jackie.

 Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, on there was the second shot that hit John.

The theory there was an early missed shot is ridiculous. No evidence of one at all.

A Zapruder clearly states when the first shot took place.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Here is the best part. A handful of clowns decided to do jiggle analysis a guy who states he only heard two shots. Probably the same group of clowns who invented the early missed shot because there was not other way of rectifying three shots and a 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano. They should have just paid attention to what the eyewitnesses told them.

[John Corbett]

Not quite, the WC not only allowed for only two shots they also postulated one of the shells was ejected before the shooting.  CE 543 shows no signs of having been fired during the assassination. Maybe that is the one they referred to. Three shells does not automatically mean three shots.

Yes, the WC did recognize the possibility Oswald started with an empty shell in the chamber but as I already said, that seems far-fetched. JBC insisted until the day he died he was not hit by the first shot but was hit by the second shot. If true and there were only two shots, which shot hit JFK in the head?

With all these three shot witnesses , which witness actually stated the first shot missed. The one certainty  it was not JBC.

The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK and JBC reacted at the same instant when both flipped their arms upward at Z226. That is the strongest evidence that the SBT was correct. If both were hit by the same shot and JBC heard a shot before the one that struck him, it stands to reason that the first shot missed.

JBC stated he did not hear the shot that hit him, but he also said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Both Nellie and Jackie stated that was after the first shot. Nellie added before the second shot. Jackie stated there were only the two shots.

Neither of the wives gave accounts that were compatible with the body of evidence. I'll give them a pass for getting it wrong under the circumstances.

Ultimately, where is the eyewitness to JFK not reacting to the first shot.

The best witness we have. The Z-film.

Nellie is definite the first shot struck JFK not just vanished into thin air. She also referenced JBC's own words as to when he was struck by the first shot. AS did Jackie.

They were both clearly wrong.

 Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, on there was the second shot that hit John.

Any theory that rests solely on the recollection of human witnesses is suspect from the start.

The theory there was an early missed shot is ridiculous. No evidence of one at all.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

A Zapruder clearly states when the first shot took place.

I have far more faith in Zapruder's camera than I do in Zapruder.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Here is the best part. A handful of clowns decided to do jiggle analysis a guy who states he only heard two shots. Probably the same group of clowns who invented the early missed shot because there was not other way of rectifying three shots and a 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano. They should have just paid attention to what the eyewitnesses told them.

Why would anyone put their faith in eyewitnesses? It is the most unreliable form of evidence we have. The Innocence Project as gotten hundreds of convictions reverse, most of them convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitnesses who were proven wrong. If I ever serve on a jury again, I would never vote to convict somebody if the best evidence a prosecutor offered was an eyewitness' account.

[Jack Nessan]

Yes, the WC did recognize the possibility Oswald started with an empty shell in the chamber but as I already said, that seems far-fetched. JBC insisted until the day he died he was not hit by the first shot but was hit by the second shot. If true and there were only two shots, which shot hit JFK in the head?
The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK and JBC reacted at the same instant when both flipped their arms upward at Z226. That is the strongest evidence that the SBT was correct. If both were hit by the same shot and JBC heard a shot before the one that struck him, it stands to reason that the first shot missed.
Neither of the wives gave accounts that were compatible with the body of evidence. I'll give them a pass for getting it wrong under the circumstances.
The best witness we have. The Z-film.
They were both clearly wrong.
Any theory that rests solely on the recollection of human witnesses is suspect from the start.
I have far more faith in Zapruder's camera than I do in Zapruder.
Why would anyone put their faith in eyewitnesses? It is the most unreliable form of evidence we have. The Innocence Project as gotten hundreds of convictions reverse, most of them convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitnesses who were proven wrong. If I ever serve on a jury again, I would never vote to convict somebody if the best evidence a prosecutor offered was an eyewitness' account.

 

Lance, you were wondering why the two shot narrative does not seem to gain popularity. John has provided a perfect example. Here you go. Here is a LNers rational at its zenith.

John believes all peoples' memories are suspect. A person is not able to recall what took place 15 minutes ago, except earwitness. An earwitness is beyond reproach.

Not one witness was provided who stated they saw a missed shot. It is all interpreting the supposed actions seen in the Zapruder film, but not before completely dismissing Zapruders own repeated statements.

If there is not an early missed shot, then the only alternative is Gov Connally has to have been struck by a second shot. Even though John believes in SBT.

John believes a bullet is SBT and then cannot understand the next shot was the headshot. Yet that is the exact premise of his early missed shot theory.

John only believes the three shot statements of just the earwitnesses or Gov Connally, but numerous two shot eyewitness cannot remember what happened and are not to be believed.

John believes in his own personal interpretation of the Zapruder Film but not Zapruder himself.

John believes in the statement of JBC and no one else. The people all around him are just unaware. Unless a three shot earwitness made the statement.

The earwitnesses can state they heard three shots and they are above scrutiny. The eyewitnesses, who not only heard what happened but were able to relate it to what they saw, are not to be trusted.

The LNer’s telling an impossible faith based story that does not fit any of the known evidence is why there is no real resolution to the JFKA. There is only proof of two shots and it is in every facet of the assassination. Two shots are the answer. Three shots can never be rectified to the evidence and will never be believed. Any conspiracy is infinitely more believable than this early missed shot nonsense. Mason’s goofy theory is way better than the Early missed shot. Mason at least tried to acknowledge some of the evidence. A second shot wounding cannot be explained in the context of a 2.3 second cycle time of the Oswald’s carcano.

 

[John Corbett]

Lance, you were wondering why the two shot narrative does not seem to gain popularity. John has provided a perfect example. Here you go. Here is a LNers rational at its zenith.

John believes all peoples' memories are suspect. A person is not able to recall what took place 15 minutes ago, except earwitness. An earwitness is beyond reproach.

You completely misrepresent what I have said repeatedly. I have never said a person is not able to recall events. I have said that witnesses don't remember things perfectly. The do remember some things but they also get some things wrong. The task is to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong by comparing their recollections to the body of evidence as a whole. In this case, we have a witness far more credible than all the other witnesses combined, and that is Zapruder's camera. Any eyewitness account that conflicts with the Z-film should be rejected.

As for my accepting earwitnesses as gospel, you obviously have not read what I have said about the earwitnesses who said the shots came from the GK. They were dead wrong. I know they were dead wrong because it conflicts with the body of evidence, starting with other earwitnesses who said the shots came from the direction of the  TSBD. We know they were right because EYEwtinesses saw a shooter firing from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor, 3 shell were found at the location the eyewitnesses pointed to, and a rifle was found elsewhere on the 6th floor. That rifle was possitively matched to the shells found in the sniper's nest and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting.

As for believing JBC, he said he turned to his right after he heard the shot that did not hit him.  The Z-film shows him start that turn at frame Z164. 6= frames later, we see his jacket suddenly bulge outward and two frames later he reacts by flipping his right arm upward followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, obviously in reaction to having been shot through the torso. I think JBC would know he heard a shot and then several seconds later he was hit by a follow up shot. The Z-film shows us that he did.

Not one witness was provided who stated they saw a missed shot. It is all interpreting the supposed actions seen in the Zapruder film, but not before completely dismissing Zapruders own repeated statements.

Your fallacy is believing eyewitnesses are needed to establish what happened. Many crimes are solved without eyewitnesses. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock left no witnesses when they murdered the Clutter family yet the investigators were able to convict them on the forensic evidence.

If there is not an early missed shot, then the only alternative is Gov Connally has to have been struck by a second shot. Even though John believes in SBT.

I have no idea what your point here is. The SBT is perfectly compatible with a first shot miss and second shot strike.

John believes a bullet is SBT and then cannot understand the next shot was the headshot. Yet that is the exact premise of his early missed shot theory.

Yes it is. Now explain why that is wrong.

John only believes the three shot statements of just the earwitnesses or Gov Connally, but numerous two shot eyewitness cannot remember what happened and are not to be believed.

That is how you resolve cases where the eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts. They can't all be correct. That's why you turn to what other evidence is available to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

John believes in his own personal interpretation of the Zapruder Film but not Zapruder himself.

It is not an interpretation that JBC turned to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164 and 60 frames later his jacket bulged out and 2 frames after that he suddenly flipped his right arm upward. Do you dispute that is what happened.

John believes in the statement of JBC and no one else. The people all around him are just unaware. Unless a three shot earwitness made the statement.

Unlike you, I do not rely solely on witnesses to tell me what happened. I evaluate what they have said in the context of all the available evidence. That allows me to determine who got what right and who got things wrong.

The earwitnesses can state they heard three shots and they are above scrutiny. The eyewitnesses, who not only heard what happened but were able to relate it to what they saw, are not to be trusted.

Since you foolishly rely solely on witnesses, I'm not surprised you can't understand the concept of corroboration.

The LNer’s telling an impossible faith based story that does not fit any of the known evidence is why there is no real resolution to the JFKA. There is only proof of two shots and it is in every facet of the assassination. Two shots are the answer. Three shots can never be rectified to the evidence and will never be believed. Any conspiracy is infinitely more believable than this early missed shot nonsense. Mason’s goofy theory is way better than the Early missed shot. Mason at least tried to acknowledge some of the evidence. A second shot wounding cannot be explained in the context of a 2.3 second cycle time of the Oswald’s carcano.

That might be the dumbest thing you have written.......so far.